A STUDY OF CONSUMERS，ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MAJOR BRANDS OF ATHLETIC

by

HEUNG YIN-YUK

RESEARCH REPORT Presented to The Graduate School

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

TWO-YEAR MBA PROGRAMME THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF May 1990

~z Dr力ulie H. Yu Advisor 309369 i ： o 卜‘ ：-T �� '•"''!：r'’ po

\ \

� � t//. / -,»• -'' / j • • �‘ .\ . - r 2 皿• V V—…. . 'I ；、..•:.... ; 7、],:'、，/ - v.. . ‘•‘：： .,/夕 ii

ABSTRACT

Athletic shoes are becoming increasingly popular in Hongkong. As more and more product lines and shoes brands are introduced, the market environment has become extremely competitive. It is of crucial importance for marketers to understand how consumers evaluate athletic shoes and how they perceive their brands. The current research applied the adequacy-importance model, a multi- attribute attitude model, to see how consumers evaluate athletic shoes and how they perceive the major brands of athletic shoes, i.e., , Nike and Bossini. Also, the differences between male and female consumers, in their evaluations of athletic shoes and brands, were identified.

Three hundred and nine -street interviews were conducted. Six product attributes were found to be important for evaluating athletic shoes. Their relative importance, however, was quite different. The scores for the three brands on these attributes differed significantly. As a whole, Reebok was found to be the strongest brand. Out of the three most important attributes, the score of Reebok on two, "A well known prestige brand" and "Style can match casual wear very well", is significantly higher than that of both Nike and Bossini. For the attribute "Comfortable enough", Reebok's score was as high as Nike's. The score of Nike on two attributes, "Durable enough" and "Design can enhance athletic performance", was the highest among the three brands. These two attributes, however, were the least important attributes. The scores for Bossini were lower than those for both Reebok and Nike on five out of six attributes. On only one iii attribute, "Price is within budget", was the score of Bossini higher than that of Reebok and Nike. Relations among attitude score, preference and purchase, attitude score are found to exist. Attitude score could reflect preference. Relations between preference and purchase, and between attitude and purchase, also present. The former relation is stronger than the latter. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF EXHIBITS vii ACKNOWLEDGMENT viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Objectives 1 Adequacy-Importance Model 3 Attitude Toward a Brand 4

II. METHODOLOGY 6 Exploratory Research 6 Research Design : 6 Questionnaire Design 7 Data Collection 7 Results 8 Descriptive Research 9 Research Design 10 Sample Design 11 Questionnaire Design 11 Data Collection 16 Data Analysis 16

III. LIMITATIONS 17

IV. RESULTS 19 Criteria/Product Attributes that are Important to Consumers in Their Evaluation of Athletic Shoes 19 The Relative Importance of Criteria/Product Attributes ..… 20 Rank of Attributes Among All Respondents 22 Consumers' Evaluation of the Major Brands of Athletic Shoes with Respect to Each of the Product Attributes . 23 V Consumers，Attitudes Towards the Major Brands of Athletic Shoes 27 Relating Preference, Attitude Score and Purchase 29 Characteristics of Respondents 38 Characteristics of Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most 46 V. FINDINGS THROUGH COMPARING THE RESULTS FROM MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS 52 Budget for the Purchase of Athletic Shoes 52 Frequency of Wearing Athletic Shoes 52 Usage Pattern - Athletic Shoes as Sports Wear Versus As Casual Wear 53 Evaluation of Product Attributes • 53 The Ranking of Reebok, Nike and Bossini : 54 VI. STRATEGIES FOR ATTITUDE CHANGE 55 Framework for Attitude Change 55 Alter the Saliency of Attributes 55 Alter Beliefs about a Brand 56 Strategic Implications for Each Brand 56 Reebok 60 Nike 62 Bossini 63

m RELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDE SCORE, PREFERENCE AND PURCHASE 64

VIII. CONCLUSION 66

APPENDICES 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY 88 vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Mean Importance Score of Each Attribute 21 TABLE 2 Rank of Each Attribute Among All Respondents 22 TABLE 3 Mean Evaluative Score of Each Brand on Each Attribute 26 TABLE 4 Mean Multi-attribute Attitude Score of Each Brand .... 28 TABLE 5 Rank of Each Brand Reported By Respondents 30 TABLE 6 Rank of Each Brand Based on the Multi-attribute Attitude Score Calculated 32 TABLE 7 Level of Consistency Between the Reported Rank and Implied Rank from the Multi-attribute Attitude Score 34 TABLE 8 Brand of Athletic Shoes Bought Last Time by ‘ Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand'the Most ... 36 TABLE 9 Brand of Athletic Shoes Bought Last Time By Respondents Who Gave the Highest Attitude Score to Each of the three Brands 37 TABLE 10 Budget for the Purchase of Athletic Shoes 38 TABLE 11 Frequency of Wearing Athletic Shoes 39 TABLE 12 Usage Pattern 40 TABLE 13 Brand of Athletic Shoes Bought Last Time 42 TABLE 14 Marital Status of Respondents 43 TABLE 15 Educational Level of Respondents 44 TABLE 16 Occupation of Respondents 44 TABLE 17 Monthly Income of Respondents 45 TABLE 18 Budget for the Purchase of Athletic Shoes by Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most .. 46 vii TABLE 19 Frequency of Wearing Athletic Shoes by Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most ... 47 TABLE 20 Usage Pattern of Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most 48 TABLE 21 Marital Status of Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most 50 TABLE 22 Education Level of Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most 50 TABLE 23 Occupation of Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most 51 TABLE 24 Monthly Income of Respondents Who Preferred Each Brand the Most 51

LISTS OF EXHIBITS •

EXHIBIT 1 Profile Analysis : Evaluation of Each Brand By All Respondents 57 EXHIBIT 2 Profile Analysis : Evaluation of Each Brand By Male Respondents 58 EXHIBIT 3 Profile Analysis : Evaluation of Each Brand By Female Respondents 59 »争• Vlll ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to people who have contributed to this research.

I need to thank my friends for their generous assistance on this research. Miss Sacha Wong, Miss Elsa Lau, Mr. Patrick Wong, Miss Carol Ma, Miss Scarlet Fung, Miss Janet Ma, Mr. Bill Lau, and Mr. Mok have devoted much of their time and effort to conduct the survey. I feel indebted for causing embarrassment to them during the on-street interviews. I also want to acknowledge the timely and accurate data coding and imputing work of Mr. Bill Lau and Mr. Mok.

My deepest appreciation goes to my advisor, Dr. Julie H. Yu, for her continuous support throughout the course of this study. Her insightful suggestions, kind assistance and patience have enabled my timely completion of this research. It is my greatest pleasure to have benefited from her talents. Any omissions or errors, however, remain my own. 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The booming of the athletic shoes industry and its extremely competitive nature triggered my interest to study it. From a marketer's point of view, one of his/her most important concern is the reason for consumers' preference. What product attributes are salient to consumers? What is the relative importance of the salient attributes? What is the consumers，perception of a brand's performance on the important product attributes? The current study is designed for those concerns, in the hope that relevant parties, i.e., the major brands of athletic shoes, will benefit from the findings of this research.

Objectives

1. To identify the criteria/product attributes that are important to consumers in their evaluation of athletic shoes.

2. To measure the relative importance of the criteria/product attributes identified.

3. To assess consumers' beliefs on the major brands of athletic shoes with respect to the product attributes identified. The difference between male 2 and female consumers with respect to their use of evaluative criteria were studied.

4. To evaluate consumers' attitudes towards the major brands of athletic shoes. The difference between male and female consumers were studied.

5. To investigate the relations among attitude score, preference and purchase.

6. To determine the characteristics of consumers who preferred each brand the most.

In this research, three major brands of athletic shoes were studied. They were Reebok, Nike and Bossini. Reebok and Nike are the market leaders, and each sees the other as its direct competitor. Bossini is a rather new brand which has taken a position as a challenger of Nike and Reebok, especially the latter. Young adults, aged eighteen to thirty, were the target segment of this study. 3 Adequacy-Importance Model

The Adequacy-Importance Model, a multi-attribute attitude model, was used as a theoretical basis to measure consumer's attitude/preference toward the brands under study. To apply this model, the basic assumption required is that the brands are rated based on the compensatory decision rule (4). That is, a perceived weakness of one attribute may be offset or compensated for by a perceived strength of another attribute. This decision rule involve evaluating each brand individually, i.e., processing by brand. The non-compensatory decision rule, on the other hand, implies that a weakness in one attribute cannot be offset by a strength in another attribute; evaluation can be either by brand across attributes or by attribute across brands. The form of processing depends upon the specific rule used.

The Adequacy-Importance model can be formulated as (3):

N

A. = E li Bij， i = 1 where A^ : attitude toward brand j, Ij : importance weight given attribute i, Bj| : belief as to the extent to which attribute i is offered by brand j, N : number of attributes

The potential advantage of a multi-attribute attitude model over the simpler "over effect" approach ( i.e., just ask consumers to indicate "what their 4 degree of preference over each brand is" ) is in gaining an understanding of attitudinal structure. It enables marketers to know what attributes are involved in constituting the consumers' attitude/preference toward a brand, i.e. how a brand is perceived by consumers. After assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their brands from the consumers' point of view, they can formulate appropriate strategies to improve the brand's competitive strengths by altering the saliency of attributes (Ij) and/or the beliefs with respect to their brands (Bj.).

Attitude Toward a Brand

Each of the brands under study has provided specific product design for different activities, including Aerobic, , , , Ball, Racquetball and even Walking. Despite such differentiation, 80% of all athletic sold in America in 1987 is not worn for a specific sport, but simply as casual street wear (5). In Hong Kong, although quotable statistics are not available, anyone who is aware of the footwear of people in Hong Kong will agree that we are experiencing a similar trend. Many athletic shoes are worn as casual street wear rather than as specific sports wear. For this reason, it is reasonable to believe that, on choosing which brand to buy, many consumers will focus more on the general features ( quality, colour, price, durability, etc.) of the athletic shoes rather than on the specific features present in a specific product line only which can help to enhance the user's performance in a specific sport. 5 The purpose of this study is to measure the attitude of consumers toward each of the major brands as a whole, not toward any of the specific product lines. Therefore, the more general attributes, not the more specific attributes, were incorporated into the Adequacy-Importance Model to measure consumers' attitudes.

Marketers are obviously most interested in brand purchasing behaviour. Ideally, it would have been desirable to study the relationship between attitudes (before and after purchase) and purchase. But this posed financial as well as methodological difficulties. Although attitude or preference do not convert directly into purchasing behaviour, they are related. Both attitude and preference can be used to predict purchasing behaviour. Attitude should be a weaker predictor than preference, but it allows the understanding of underlying reasons for preference and purchase. Attitude score was demonstrated to be a good predictor of individual preference (1,6). The validity of multi-attribute attitude score, in this research, was tested through comparison of the individual attitude score with preference.

The use of attitude and preference to predict purchase requires measuring attitude and preference before purchase, and then recording future purchase behaviour. This, again, brings many financial and methodological difficulties. In recent research, last purchase (the brand of athletic shoes bought last time) instead of future purchase was used to at the relations between attitude score and purchase, as well as preference and purchase. 6

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Exploratory Research

Exploratory research was used to identify the criteria/product attributes which are important to consumers in their evaluation of athletic shoes.

Research Design

On-street interviews were conducted. With face-to-face interactions, researcher would be able to prompt the respondents and encourage them to give more thoughts on the open ended questions. Each interview lasted 5 to 10 minutes.

Certain criteria were used to screen respondents. Young adults aged 18- 30 who have either purchased a pair of athletic shoes priced over two hundred dollars in the past 2 years, or who are going to buy a pair within the next three months, were subjects for this phase of research. 7 Questionnaire Design

A sample of the questionnaire used is included in Appendix lA. In the first part (Q4), open ended questions were asked to identify the criteria in consumers' minds used for the evaluation of athletic shoes.

In the second part (Q.5 to Q.17), closed ended questions were asked. Thirteen randomized statements, both negatively and positively worded, describing various considerations for the purchase of athletic shoes were read to the respondents. To help them to answer the questions, a chart with six degrees of agreement was shown to them. The six degrees from 1 to 6 ranged from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree.

Data Collection

Limited by time constraints, and the fact that this research is only for exploring factors (attributes) for further studies, the sample size need not be big, and the original target is fifty. Fifty-six interviews were actually conducted. They were conducted in Cantonese, the mother tongue of the target population. Thirty respondents were male and twenty-six were female. Researchers tried to approach, as often as possible, solitary individuals (i.e., those with no companions) who seemed to be between the ages of 18 to 30. Interviews were conducted in the Mong Kok District on January 17, 1990. 8 Results

Results of the first part (04)

As summarized in Appendix IB, 7 criteria were found to be mentioned the most. They are : Style, Design, Price, Comfort, Brand name, Durability and Material Used, in descending order of number of mentions. All of them were to be incorporated into the actual research. However, after the pretest, the questionnaire for the actual research was found to be a bit too long and too complicated. To decrease the degree of complication, one of the changes made was cutting the number of criteria from 7 to 6. The seemingly least important criterion, material used, was removed. ‘

Results from the second part (05-017)

* Most of the respondents agreed that they would decide on a budget before the purchase of athletic shoes. And it is likely that the cost of the athletic shoes will lie within the budget.

* Most of the respondents agreed that it is very important that the style of athletic shoes can match casual wear.

* There is no special preference among respondents as a whole toward athletic shoes of traditional design and innovative design. 9

* Most of the respondents disagreed that, on the purchase of athletic shoes priced $200 or above, they will not pay much attention to the material used.

* Respondents, in general, thought, it is more important for the style of athletic shoes to match casual wear than sports wear.

* Most respondents would have decided on the main colour of athletic shoes, usually white, before they go to buy them.

* Respondents tend to wear athletic shoes as casual wear more than as sports wear.

* Respondents indicated that they will not buy a pair of specially designed athletic shoes for each of the sports they like to play.

Descriptive research

This is the actual research used to determine the relations between the attributes identified in the exploratory research and to achieve the objectives of this study. 10

Research Design

The method intended to be used for evaluating criteria involve the ranking of all attributes together. This requires respondents to consider all attributes at one time, which is impossible if a visual aid showing all attributes is not presented to respondents. For this reason, the face-to-face interview is preferred over telephone survey and mail survey. With a face-to-face interview, criteria can be shown to the respondents and the evaluation process can be explained more clearly.

Due to the lack of monetary resources, probability sampling is riot feasible. As a result, on-street interview was the choice of the current research, and each interview lasted around 10 minutes.

Young adults aged 18-30 who have either purchased a pair of athletic shoes priced over two hundred dollars in the past 2 years or are going to buy a pair within the next three months were approached as potential subjects.

To avoid bias that may occur due to the presence of another person, only individuals who were not accompanied by anyone were approached. In case the respondent's friend arrived during the interview, his/her friend would be asked to wait aside for a few minutes. 11 Sample Design

Convenience sampling was used. Researchers tried to approach, as often as possible, solitary individuals (i.e., those with no companions) who seemed to be between the ages of 18 to 30.

The method of sample size determination for probability sampling was used for calculating the sample size of the current research. The total sample size is 300，150 of each sex. This is the largest sample size required for the current study, which involves sample proportion estimation, at 95 percent confidence level with E (error) not greater than six percentage points. Estimated proportion of a brand being preferred the most or not is assumed to be 0.5 (refer to Appendix 2 for the sample size calculations).

Questionnaire design

A sample of the questionnaire used is included in Appendix 3A. Before the actual research, a pretest was conducted to test the questionnaire. Forty individuals, twenty of each sex, were interviewed. After the pretest, the wording and structure of the questionnaire were modified. A visual aid was added to help respondents in answering the questions. These will be further described in the following discussion.

To enhance the cooperation of respondents, researchers introduced 12 themselves as students of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. After screening the individuals, data concerning the budget for the purchase of, and the frequency of wearing, athletic shoes were collected. Besides, the usage pattern of individuals was recorded. Next, the relative importance of the six attributes (Ij in the adequacy importance model), 1. Price is within budget. 2. Style can match casual wear very well. 3. Comfortable enough. 4. Durable enough. 5. A well known prestige brand. 6. Design can enhance athletic performance. was determined. These attributes were identified from the exploratory research « and have been refined after the pretest. In the exploratory research, 7 attributes were identified. However, during the pretest, the questionnaire was found to be a bit too long and too complicated. To decrease the degree of complication, the seemingly least important criterion, material used, was removed. Also, coloration, a criterion which seemed to be important in the exploratory research, was not included. The reason is, respondents tended to prefer athletic shoes that are white, and most of the shoes offered by Reebok, Nike or Bossini are already white in colour. Therefore, coloration would not be a factor used by consumers to distinguish the three brands. Hence, it was not included.

The attributes used are quite specific and are pity strong in tone. The former avoid the ambiguity that may raise if attributes are not specific enough. For example, if "price" is used instead of "price is within budget", we will never 13 know whether a high price or a low price is important. The "price is within budget" attribute cope with the budget question (Q5) allow us to better understand the role of price in athletic shoes evaluations. A stronger tone was used because the brands under study are major brands of athletic shoes that, to certain extent, already possess the important product attributes. If a softer tone was used, respondents might be unable to distinguish the performance of the three brands.

A projective technique was employed in this section. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of each criterion "for people in general" in the evaluation of athletic shoes. This technique would help to reveal the true beliefs of the respondents. ‘

A ratio scale of zero to one hundred was used for rating the importance of the attributes. The ratio scale is good in the sense that addition, subtraction, multiplication and division can be applied to the score without altering its meaning. Zero to one hundred was used because people in general should be very familiar with this way of scoring.

The evaluation of attributes consists of two parts, ranking and scoring, side by side. Ranking in fact would facilitate the scoring process. At first, respondents were asked to indicate the most important attribute and assign a score of one hundred to it. Then the scores of the other attributes were assigned one after another, as they were ranked from 2 to 6. Forced ranking was used. Assigning the same score or same rank to two attributes was not allowed. 14 To eliminate order bias, the six attributes were randomized. If totally randomized, the number of possible combinations is 720 (6x5x4x3x2x1), which is far too many. Only five versions of the questionnaire, each differing in the order of attributes, were constructed and used in the survey. Simply because 15 (the total number of versions required, see Appendix 3B) is divisible by 300 (total sample) and 150 (sample size for each sex), and therefore easier to administer, five versions were used instead of six. The order of attributes in each of the five versions is listed in Appendix 3B.

To determine the evaluative scores for each brand (Bjj in the adequacy importance model), respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement that each of the six attributes can be used to describe each of the three brands Reebok, Nike and Bossini. An interval scale with six degrees of agreement, 1 to 6，ranging from very low degree of agreement to very high degree of agreement was used. The scale does not include choice for disagreement. This is because, during the exploratory research, when a scale with three degrees of agreement and three degrees of disagreement was used, most of the answers tended to fall on the agree side of the scale. Respondents tended to agree that the attributes can be used to describe all three brands. But they may have different degrees of agreement for each of the three brands. As a result, only degrees of agreement, and not degrees of disagreement, were included in the scale.

During the pretest, respondents were not found to pay enough attention to this section (maybe because of its repetitive nature). This was largely improved through use of a visual aid which lists the attributes, the agreement scale and the 15 brands under study. The visual aid worked because it was something that the respondents can look at, so that they no longer look around and pay more attention to the questions being asked.

Order bias was eliminated by randomizing the order of the brands. Three different orders of brands were used. They are listed in Appendix 3B.

Applying the multi-attribute attitude model, the evaluative score of each brand can be calculated using the data from question eight to eleven. In addition to analyzing the scores, they were converted to ranks. In each response, the brand that received the highest score was assigned rank one on an "implied rank" (rank implied from the multi-attribute attitude score). The brands receiving the second and third highest scores were assigned ranks of two three, respectively.

Before collecting demographic data, respondents were asked to indicate their order of preference for the three brands, a so-called "reported rank", and the brand of athletic shoes they bought last. On asking the demographics questions, a card listing the categories of answers was shown to the respondents.

As mentioned above, the multi-attribute attitude scores were converted to ranks. The purpose of such conversion is to look at the relation between attitude score and preference. The former would give the "implied rank", while the latter would give the "reported rank". If attitude score can reflect preference, the ranking of brands by attitude score and by preference would be the same. So, by comparing the "implied rank" with the "reported rank", we can see how well 16 the attitude score can reflect preference. In the latter part of this report, such a comparison would be regarded as the level of consistency between the implied and reported ranks.

Data collection

Data were collected during the first three weeks of February 1990. Interviews were conducted in Cantonese, the mother tongue of the target population. To minimize time and location biases, interviews were conducted during both days and nights, weekends and weekdays at various locations in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. Locations included Tai Koo Shing, Causeway Bay, Wan Chai, Mong Kok, Kowloon Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui and Shatin. Within each district, interviews were conducted at busy spots like shopping arcades, waiting areas, cinemas, and MTR stations (at the entrances).

The total number of respondents interviewed was 309，of which 157 (51%) were male and 152 (49%) were female.

Data Analysis

The statistical package SPSS/PC + was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were the major type of analyses conducted, t-tests were used to test for the differences in mean scores of attributes and brands at the 95 percent confidence level. 17

CHAPTER III

LIMITATIONS

During the exploratory phase, 56 respondents were interviewed. Their opinions were used as a basis for further investigations. Their opinions, however, might not totally represent those of the target population (all young adults aged 18-30 who have either purchased a pair of athletic shoes priced over two hundred dollars in the past 2 years or are going to buy a pair within the next three months). Some attributes that are involved in athletic shoes evaluation might remain unidentified.

In the descriptive research, non-probability sampling was used. Findings of the current research, therefore, might not be generalizable to the target population.

The age of most respondents was less likely to be close to 30 for two reasons. First, on selecting respondents, it is possible that researchers tended to avoid embarrassing potential respondents by approaching individuals that look, and in fact are, younger. Second, it is likely that individuals close to the age of thirty are married and tend to stay at home. If this is the case, the opinions of people close to the age of thirty are less represented, as compared to other ages within the 18-30 age range. 18 As in any research, response bias as well as non-response bias may occur. Response biases in the present research include : 1. Misinterpretation. Respondent might have misinterpreted or misunderstood the questions that were asked. 2. Auspices bias. Interviewer introduce themselves as the students of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Respondents knowing who organize this research, might give a distorted answer. 3. Social desirability bias. Respondent might give socially desirable answers to the questions.

Another type of bias is interviewer bias. The presence of interviewer for direct questioning might affect the answers. Respondent might not really want to answer the questions and they might not have enough thoughts before answering the questions. Also, the difference in appearance, speech, tone and sex of interviewers might also affect the answers. Besides, interviewer might have checked an incorrect answer, might try to lead the answer, or even cheat.

During the survey, some people were unwilling to respond. Non-response bias due to the differences in characteristics and attitude between people responding and not responding might occur.

Lastly, administrative errors due to mistakes in data coding, input and analysis might exist. 19

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Criteria/Product Attributes that are Important to Consumers in Their Evaluation of Athletic Shoes

As mentioned in the questionnaire design section, six attributes were found from the exploratory research to be important for the evaluation of athletic shoes. The six attributes for further investigation in the descriptive research are listed as follows :

1. Price is within budget. 2. Style can match casual wear very well. 3. Comfortable enough. 4. Durable enough. 5. A well known prestige brand. 6. Design can enhance athletic performance.

—〜_丨1 _~一 - - — 20 The Relative Importance of Criteria/Product Attributes

Mean Importance Score of Each Attribute

Table 1 shows that among both male and female consumers, "A well known prestige brand" is the most important attribute (mean score among males = 71.2, among females = 82.9). It is followed by the attribute "Comfortable enough" and then "Style can match casual wear very well", "Price is within budget", "Durable enough", and "Design can enhance athletic performance丨丨.

The t-tests 1 to 4 in Appendix 4 summarize the results that test for the differences in mean scores in Table 1 (at 95 percent confidence level). With few exceptions, the differences in mean scores for all attributes, among all groups of respondents (all respondents, male respondents only and female respondents only), are significant. The exceptions are, first, there is no significant difference in mean score of attributes "Style can match casual wear" and "Comfortable enough" within any group of respondents.

Second, among male consumers, the mean scores of attributes "A well known prestige brand", "Comfortable enough" and "Style can match casual wear very well" are close to each other (71.2, 71.1 and 70.4, respectively) and the difference among them is not significant, meaning that male respondents, as a whole, value these three attributes similarly. But among female respondents, the importance score of the attribute "A well known prestige brand" is significantly higher than the score of the other two attributes (82.9 versus 71.7 and 69.3). 21 Third, for all attributes except "A well known prestige brand", the mean scores given by male and female respondents do not differ significantly. Female respondents tend to see "A well known prestige brand" as a more important attribute than do male respondents.

TABLE 1 MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORE OF EACH ATTRIBUTE

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N = 309) (N = 157) (N = 152) Attributes Mean score Mean Score Mean Score Price is within budget 57.4 (4) 573 (4) 57.6 (4) Style can match casual wear very well 69.9 (3) 70.4 (3) 69.3 (3) Comfortable enough 71.4 (2) 71.1 (2) 71.7 (2) Durable enough 51.8 (5) 50.5 (5) 53.1 (5) A well known prestige brand 77.0 (1) 71.2 (1) 82.9 (1) Design can enhance athletic performance 45.0 (6) 44.7 (6) 45.3 (6) ()The descending order of the mean scores of attributes /

22 Rank of Attributes Among All Respondents

Almost half (48.5 percent) of all respondents ranked "A well known prestige brand" as the most important attribute. See Table 2. "Design can enhance athletic performance" is the least important attribute, with 46 percent of the respondents ranking it as such.

The order of ranking matches the order of the mean importance score of attributes (see Table 1). This means that importance ranking of attributes from either the mean importance score or from the percentage that ranked each attribute as "the most important", is the same. Hence, the importance ranking of attributes from both methods is consistent. ‘

TABLE 2 RANK OF EACH ATTRIBUTE AMONG ALL RESPONDENTS

Rank % (N = 309) Attribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Price is within budget 5.8 (4) 16.8 21.4 22.0 19.7 14.2 100.0 Style can match casual wear very well 19.1 (3) 29.1 22.3 12.9 10.4 6.1 100.0 Comfortable enough 21.7 (2) 24.9 24.3 18.4 8.4 2.3 100.0 Durable enough 3.2 (5) 11.7 12.9 21.4 30.1 20.7 100.0 A well known prestige brand 48.5 (1) 11.3 8.4 11.7 9.7 10.4 100.0 Design can enhance athletic performance 1.6 (6) 6.1 10.7 13.6 21.7 46.3 100.0 ()The order that each attribute being ranked "the most important" (rank 1) from the highest to lowest percent. 23 Consumers' Evaluation of the Major Brands of Athletic Shoes with Respect to Each of the Product Attributes

t-tests 5-7 in Appendix 4 summarize the t-test results of the mean scores in Table 3. The scores of the three brands are plotted in Exhibits 1 to 3 (see page 57-59).

Comparing the Mean Scores of the Three Brands by Attribute

Price is within budget : It is shown in Table 3 that the score for Bossini is higher than that for Reebok or Nike. Among male respondents, the score of Bossini is significantly higher than both Reebok and Nike (4.24 vs. 3.85 and 3.82). Among female respondents, the score of Bossini is significantly higher than Reebok (4.25 vs. 3.99) but not Nike (4.25 vs. 4.17). The mean scores of Nike and Reebok do not differ significantly in any groups (all respondents, male respondents only and female respondents only).

Style can match casual wear very well: Among all groups of respondents, the score of Reebok is significantly higher than that of both Nike and Bossini. The score of Nike and Bossini do not differ significantly among any groups of respondents.

Comfortable enough : The performance of Nike and Reebok on this attribute were equal in all groups of respondents. The performance of Bossini, 24 however, is not as satisfactory as either Nike or Reebok. Within all groups of respondents, Bossini's score is significantly lower than that of Nike or Reebok.

Durable enough : Within all groups of respondents, the score of Nike is significantly higher than that of Reebok, which in turn is higher than that of Bossini.

A well known prestige brand : Within all groups of respondents, the score of Reebok is significantly higher than that of Nike, which in turn is significantly higher than that of Bossini.

Design can enhance athletic performance : Within all groups of respondents, the score of Nike is significantly higher than that of Reebok, which in turn is significantly higher than that of Bossini.

Comparing the Scores Given by Male and Female Respondents by Brand

t-tests 8-10 in Appendix 4 summarize the results of testing the differences in mean scores of each brand given by male and female respondents.

Reebok : On two attributes, "Durable enough" and "Design can enhance athletic performance", the evaluative score given by female respondents to Reebok were higher than those given by male respondents. For the other four 25 attributes, the scores given by the two sexes do not differ significantly.

Nike : The evaluative scores of Nike given by males and females do not differ significantly. Out of six attributes, the scores on five attributes given by the two sexes are very close and have no significant differences between them. On one attribute, "Price is within budget", the score given by female respondents is significantly higher than that given by male respondents. In other words, female respondents have higher tendency to believe that Nike's price is within their budget.

Bossini : It is found that in the evaluation of Bossini, female respondents tend to give higher scores than do male respondents. Out of six attributes, the scores of four attributes given by females are significantly higher than those given by male respondents. The four attributes are, "Comfortable enough", "Durable enough", "A well known prestige brand" and "Design can enhance athletic performance". For the remaining two attributes, "Price is within budget" and "Style can match casual wear very wear", the scores given by the two sexes do not differ significantly. 26 TABLE 3 MEAN EVALUATIVE SCORE OF EACH BRAND ON EACH ATTRIBUTE

Reebok Nike Bossini Attribute Mean score Mean score Mean score Price is within budget All Respondents 3.92 3.99 4.24 Males Only 3.85 3.82 4.24 Females Only 3.99 4.17 4.25 Style can match casual wear very well All Respondents 4.43 3.94 4.04 Males Only 4.33 3.82 3.93 Females Only 4.53 4.05 4.15 Comfortable enough � All Respondents 4.41 4.47 3.74 Males Only 4.32 4.43 3.61 Females Only 4.51 4.51 3.87 Durable enough All Respondents 3.95 4.35 3.52 Males Only 3.77 4.34 3.36 Females Only 4.13 4.37 3.69 A well known prestige brand All Respondents 5.11 4.72 3.78 Males Only 5.00 4.69 3.58 Females Only 5.23 4.74 3.98 Design can enhance athletic performance All Respondents 3.88 4.59 3.30 Males Only 3.64 4.66 3.07 Females Only 4.13 4.52 3.55

Total no. of respondents = 309 Males = 157 Females = 152 27 Consumers，Attitudes Towards the Major Brands of Athletic Shoes

Comparing the Mean Attitude Score of the Three Brands

t-test 11-14 in Appendix 4 summarize the results in testing the differences in scores of the three brands in Table 4.

In Table 4，within all groups of respondents (all respondents, males only and females only), the scores of Reebok and Nike are three to five percent higher than the overall mean while Bossini is around ten percent lower than the overall mean. Also, the score of Bossini is significantly lower than that of Reebok and Nike. ‘

Among all respondents, the overall mean score of the three brands is 1571. Although Reebok has the highest mean score (1651) while Nike has the second highest score (1630)，the difference between the two mean scores is not significant.

Among male respondents, the overall mean score of the three brands is 1499. The scores for Reebok and Nike are the same (1572 vs. 1572), while the score for Bossini is significantly lower. Among female respondents, the overall mean score is 1646. The score for Reebok is significantly higher than that for Nike (1733 vs. 1690). Again, the score for Bossini is significantly lower than those for the other two brands. 28 Comparing the Attitude Scores of Each Brand Given by Male and Female Respondents

Female respondents gave significantly higher scores than did males. This is not because female respondents tend to give higher mean scores to the attributes (Ij of the adequacy-importance model). Rather, it is because female respondents tend to give higher evaluative scores to each brand (Bj. of the adequacy-importance model) than do male respondents.

TABLE 4 MEAN MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ATTITUDE ‘ SCORE OF EACH BRAND

All % of Males % of Females % of Respondents overall Only overall Only overall Brand (N = 309) mean (N = 157) mean (N = 152) mean Reebok 1651 105 1572 105 1733 105 Nike 1630 104 1572 105 1690 103 Bossini 1433 91 1353 90 1515 92 Overall Mean 1571 100 1499 100 1646 100 29 Relating Preference. Attitude Score and Purchase

Preference : Reported rank of Each Brand

Among all respondents, the proportion that ranked Reebok and Nike first are approximately the same (around 45% each). See Table 5. The proportion that ranked Bossini first is 10.4 percent, while 64.1 percent ranked it third.

Female respondents tend to assign a higher rank to Reebok than to Nike. Fifty-six percent of them ranked Reebok first but only 32.9 percent ranked Nike first. But for male respondents the contrary is true. They tend to give a higher rank to Nike than to Reebok. Fifty-seven percent of the male respondents ranked Nike first while only 33.8 percent ranked Reebok first.

For Bossini, both male and female respondents tend to give it the lowest rank. Sixty percent of the female respondents ranked it the third, while the percentage for male respondents was 68.2 percent. 30 TABLE 5 RANK OF EACH BRAND REPORTED BY RESPONDENTS

Rank 12 3 Total % % % %

All Respondents Reebok 44.7 40.8 14.6 100.0 Nike 45.0 33.7 21.4 100.0 Bossini 10.4 25.6 64.1 100.0 Males Only Reebok 33.8 51.0 15.3 100.0 Nike 56.7 26.8 16.6 100.0 Bossini 9.6 22.3 68.2 100.0 Females Only Reebok 55.9 30.3 13.8 100.0 Nike 32.9 40.8 26.3 100.0 Bossini ^ ^ 59.9 100.0 Total no. of respondents = 309 Males = 157 Females = 152

Attitude : Implied rank of Each Brand

As mentioned in the methodology section, the multi-attribute attitude scores were converted to ranks. Brands that received the highest, the second and third highest score are ranked number 1’ 2 and 3 respectively. This is the "implied rank" of a brand. Rank 2X is assigned when all of the three brands received the same multi-attribute attitude score. Rank 1.5 is assigned when one brand and another brand received the same score which is higher than that of a third brand. Rank 2.5 is assigned when one brand and another brand received the same score which is lower than that of the third brand. 31 The purpose of such assignment is to look at the relation between attitude score and preference. If attitude score can reflect preference, the ranking of brands by attitude score or by preference would be the same. So, by comparing the "implied rank" with the "reported rank", we can see how well the attitude score can reflect preference.

Table 6 shows that the "implied rank" of each brand from the multi- attribute attitude score is similar to that in Table 5 where the rank of each brand is reported directly by respondents.

Among all respondents, the percentage that ranked Reebok and Nike first is approximately the same (around 42% each). The proportion that ranked Bossini first is 12.6 percent and ranked it third is 57.6 percent.

Female respondents tended to give a higher score to Reebok than to Nike. In half of the cases among female respondents, the resultant attitude score of Reebok (from the multi-attribute attitude score) is highest. The percentage in which Nike's score is highest is 34.2 percent. But for male respondents the contrary is true. They tended to give a higher score to Nike than to Reebok. In almost half of the cases among male respondents, the resultant attitude score of Nike (from the multi-attribute attitude score) is highest. The percentage that ranked Reebok's score highest is 34.4 percent.

For Bossini, both male and female respondents tended to give it the lowest score. In approximately 58 percent of the cases among female and male 32 respondents, the resultant attribute score of Bossini is the lowest.

TABLE 6 RANK OF EACH BRAND BASED ON THE MULTI-ATTRIBUTE ATTITUDE SCORE CALCULATED

Rank 1 1.5 2 2X 2.5 3 Total % % % % % % % All Respondents Reebok 42.1 2.3 38.2 0.3 2.6 14.6 100.0 Nike 42.1 1.3 30.4 0.3 2.3 23.6 100.0 Bossini 12.6 2.3 24.3 0.3 2.9 57.6 100.0 Males Only - Reebok 34.4 3.8 44.6 / 3.2 14,0 100.0 Nike 49.7 1.9 22.3 / 1.9 24.2 100.0 Bossini 11.5 3.2 24.2 / 3.8 57.3 100.0 Females Only Reebok 50.0 0.7 31.6 0.7 2.0 15.1 100.0 Nike 34.2 0.7 38.8 0.7 2.6 23.0 100.0 Bossini 13.8 1.3 24.3 0.7 2.0 57.9 100.0 Note : Total no. of respondents = 309 Males = 157 Females = 152

Rank 2X is assigned when all of the three brands received the same multi-attribute attitude score. This occurred in only one female respondent. Rank 1.5 is assigned when one brand and another brand received the same score which is higher than that of a third brand. The cases in which this occurred are as follows: Brands that received the same score No. of cases Reebok and Bossini 5 Nike and Bossini 2 Reebok and Nike 2 Rank 2.5 is assigned when one brand and another brand received the same score which is lower than that of the third brand. The cases in which this occurred are as follows: Brands that received the same score No. of cases Reebok and Bossini 5 Nike and Bossini 4 Reebok and Nike 3 33 Level of Consistency Between Reported Rank and Implied Rank

Table 7 summarizes the level of consistency of ranks of the three brands between the reported rank (see Table 5) and the implied rank from the multi- attribute attitude score (see Table 6). A response is said to be consistent if the reported rank of the three brands is totally in accordance with the implied rank. A case is said to be inconsistent if the reported rank of the three brands is not totally in accordance with the implied rank.

For the reported rank, respondents were not allowed to assign the same rank to two or more brands. But for the implied rank, two or even three brands may have the same rank if the calculations gave the same multi-attribute attitude scores. These cases, however, are excluded from the calculation of consistency level in the above table. To check what these cases are, see Table 6.

More than half of the cases are found to be consistent. That is, more than half of the respondents have reported ranks of the three brands totally in accordance with the ranks from the multi-attribute attitude scores. The attitude scores correctly reflect the preferences of many individuals. This indicates that, in the current research, the use of attitude score to explain preference is, to a certain extent, valid. So, it is apparent that consumer preference can be explained satisfactorily with the findings accompanying the multi-attribute attitude model.

For inconsistency to occur, preferences of an individual are not totally 34 reflected by the attitude score, i.e., some factor is intervening. There are several possible reasons for this. First, some other attribute that is considered by individual respondents are not included in the research. For example, an individual may think that quality of material used is important or prefer a brand that has an image that matches his/her life-style or personality. The presence of discount or the availability of a gift may be important for some respondents. Second, the respondents might not think seriously before answering the questions. Third, it is quite easy for inconsistency to occur and it does not mean total inconsistency. In any case, inconsistency would occur if the reported ranks of the three brands are not totally in accordance with their implied ranks. That means, even if the rank of one brand is consistent and that of any other brand is not, the case is still regarded as inconsistent. So, although the percentage of inconsistency is high, many cases in fact are partially consistent.

TABLE 7 LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE REPORTED RANK AND IMPLIED RANK FROM THE MULTI- ATTRIBUTE ATTITUDE SCORE

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N = 309) (N = 157) (N = 152) Consistent cases % 52.6 53.8 51.4 Inconsistent cases % 47.4 46.2 48.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 35 Purchase ： Brand of Athletic Shoes Bought Last Time

By respondents who prefer each brand the most : Among those ranked Reebok first, 60.9 percent have bought Reebok recently. See Table 8. However, among those who ranked Nike first, only 28.1 percent have bought Nike recently. Nineteen percent and 13.7 percent have bought Reebok and , respectively. Half of the respondents that ranked Bossini first have bought Bossini recently, while 15.6% bought .

By respondents who gave the highest attitude score to each of the three brands : Among those gave the highest score to Reebok, 46.2 percent have bought Reebok recently. See Table 9. However, among those who gave Nike the highest score, only 23.1 percent have bought Nike recently. Thirty-two percent have bought Reebok. Twenty-six percent of the respondents that gave the highest attitude score to Bossini have bought it recently. Twenty-eight and thirteen percent have bought Reebok and Nike, respectively.

The relations between preference and purchase, and attitude score and purchase are further discussed in chapter VII. 36

TABLE 13 BRAND OF ATHLETIC SHOES BOUGHT LAST TIME BY RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini Brand bought % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Reebok 60.9 ( 84) 19.4 ( 27) 9.4 ( 3) Nike 1.4 ( 2) 28.1 ( 39) 6.3 ( 2) Bossini 5.1 ( 7) 5.0 ( 7) 50.0 ( 16) . 2.2 ( 3) 2.9 ( 4) 3.1 ( 1), LA. Gear 5.8 ( 8) 2.9 ( 4) 3.1 ( 1) Puma 5.8 ( 8) 7.9 ( 11) 15.6 ( 5) Adidas 3.6 ( 5) 13.7 ( 19) / ( /) / ( / ) 2.9 ( 4) / ( / ) Others 15.2 ( 21) 17.3 ( 24) 12.5 ( 4 ) TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32) 37

TABLE 13 BRAND OF ATHLETIC SHOES BOUGHT LAST TIME BY RESPONDENTS WHO GAVE THE HIGHEST ATTITUDE SCORES TO EACH OF THE THREE BRANDS

Brand Received the Highest Attitude Score Reebok Nike Bossini Brand bought % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Reebok 46.2 ( 60) 31.5 ( 41) 28.2 ( 11) Nike 3.8 ( 5) 23.1 ( 30) 12.8 ( 5) Bossini 6.2 ( 8) 7.7 ( 10) 25.6 ( 10) . Diadora 3.8 (5) 2.3 ( 3) / ( /), LA. Gear 5.4 ( 7) 3.8 ( 5) 2.6 ( 1) Puma 9.2 ( 12) 4.6 ( 6) 7.7 ( 3) Adidas 9.2 ( 12) 6.9 ( 9) 7.7 ( 3) New Balance / (/) 3.1 ( 4) / ( / ) Others 16.2 ( 21) 16.9 ( 22) 15.4 ( 6) TOTAL 100.0 (130) 100.0 (130) 100.0 ( 39)

Note : In this table the total number of respondents (299) is 10 less than the actual total number of respondents (309). This is because, in one response, the attitude score of three brands were the same, and in nine other responses, the score of two brands were the same and were higher than that of a third brand (see Table 6). These cases do not have a single brand that has the highest attitude score, and are excluded from the above table. 38 Characteristics of Respondents

Budget for the Purchase of Athletic Shoes

In Table 10, more than half of the respondents (51.8 percent) stated that their budget will be around three hundred dollars.

Forty-five percent of the male respondents stated that their budget will be four hundred dollars or more while the percentage for females is 34.2 percent. It seems that male consumers are willing to spend more money on athletic shoes.

TABLE 10 BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF ATHLETIC SHOES

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N=309) (N=157) (N=152) Budget $ % % %

100 0.3 0.6 0.0 200 8.4 7.6 9.2 300 51.8 47.1 56.6 400 31.7 33.1 30.3 500 or above 7.8 11.5 3.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 39 Frequency of Wearing Athletic Shoes

On average, 41.1 percent of the respondents wear athletic shoes one to two days per week. See Table 11.

For male consumers, 41.4 percent wear athletic shoes five days or more per week. For female consumers, only 8.6 percent wear athletic shoes five days or more per week. Therefore, male consumers tend to wear athletic shoes more frequently than do female consumers.

TABLE 11 - FREQUENCY OF WEARING ATHLETIC SHOES

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N=309) (N=157) (N = 152) Frequency % % % <1 Day/Month 2.6 1.3 3.9 1-3 Days/Month 6.5 3.2 9.9 1-2 Days/Week 41.1 32.5 50.0 3-4 Days/Week 24.6 21.7 27.6 5 Days or more Per Week 25.2 41.4 8.6 TOTAL 100.0 40 Usage Pattern - Wear Athletic Shoes As Sports Wear Versus As Casual Wear

It is shown in Table 12 that 79 percent of the respondents wear athletic shoes as casual street wear more than as sports wear (when percent of time as casual wear is greater than or equal to 60 percent). Only 7.8 percent of them wear athletic shoes as sports wear more than as casual wear (when percent of time as casual wear is less than or equal to 40 percent). The remaining 13.3 percent wear athletic shoes as sports wear as frequently as casual wear.

Seventy-six percent of the female respondents wear athletic shoes as casual street wear more than as sports wear. The percentage for male respondents is 81.5 percent.

TABLE 12 USAGE PATTERN

All Males Females Respondents only only Sports wear Casual wear (N=309) (N=157) (N=152) % of time % of time % % % 0 100 21.7 20.4 23.0 10 90 19.1 19.7 18.4 20 80 15.5 14.0 17.1 30 70 19.7 24.2 15.1 40 60 2.9 3.2 2.6 50 50 13.3 12.1 14.5 60 40 1.0 1.3 0.7 70 30 1.0 1.9 / 80 20 1.9 1.9 2.0 90 10 1.0 / 2.0 100 0 2.9 1.3 4.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 41 Brand of Athletic Shoes Bought Last Time

Table 13 indicates that Reebok dominated the sales to respondents in the last pair of athletic shoes they bought. Thirty-seven percent of all respondents bought a pair of Reebok as their last purchase. The domination is especially prominent among female respondents. Forty-seven percent of them bought Reebok last time. The percent for males is 27.4 percent.

Around 14 percent and 10 percent of all respondents bought Nike and Bossini, respectively, last time.

From Table 7 and Table 13, among all female respondents, 55.9 and 46.7 percent of them preferred and have bought Reebok, respectively. Among male respondents, although 56.7 percent of them reported that they prefer Nike the most, the percentage of males that have bought Nike recently is only 19.1 percent. So, it is more likely for Reebok that a person who prefers it would have actually bought it. But it is less likely for Nike that a person who prefers it would have actually bought it. 42

TABLE 13 BRAND OF ATHLETIC SHOES BOUGHT LAST TIME

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N = 309) (N = 157) (N = 152) Brand % % % Reebok 36.9 27.4 46.7 Nike 13.9 19.1 8.6 Bossini 9.7 10.2 9.2 Diadora 2.6 2.5 2.6 LA. Gear 4.2 0.6 7.9 Puma 7.8 8.3 7.2 Adidas 7.8 12.1 3.3 New Balance 1.3 2.5 / . Others 15.9 17.2 14.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

15.9 percent (49) of the respondents bought other brands. 10 of them were unable to report the brand. The other brands that were named are : (8) K Swiu (6) Mohawk (3) Kamachi (3) Surf-siders (2) Tiger (2) Converses (2) L.A.Gear (2) Hi-tech (2) Prince (1) Mizuno (1) (1) California Life (1) Renee (1) (1) (1) Concept (1) Jantzen (1) 43 Demographics of Respondents

Tables 14-17 summarize the demographics of respondents. Around 90 percent of the respondents were single; only 10 percent were married. The majority of the respondents (64.4%) have finished up to the level of form 4 to form 7. Twenty-two percent have tertiary education.

More than half of the respondents were white collar. Less than 20 percent were blue collar workers. Eleven percent were students and 7.4 percent were self- employed.

Monthly income of over 50 percent of all respondents lie in the range of five thousand to eight thousand dollars. Around 15 percent were making eight thousand to fourteen thousand a month.

TABLE 14 MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N=309) (N=157) (N = 152) % % %

Single 90.3 91.7 88.8 Married, Divorced or Widowed 9.7 8.3 11.2 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 44

TABLE 15 EDUCATION LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N = 309) (N = 157) (N = 152) Education level % % % Primary School 0.3 0.6 / Form 1 to Form 3 13.3 14.6 11.8 Form 4 to Form 7 64.4 59.2 69.7 Tertiary Education 22.0 25.5 18.4 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE 16 OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N = 309) (N=157) (N=152) % % % White Collar 57.6 46.5 69.1 Blue Collar 16.8 22.3 11.2 Self-employed 7.4 13.4 1.3 Student 10.7 10.8 10.5 House-wife 1.0 / 2.0 Others 6.4 7.0 6.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 45

TABLE 13 MONTHLY INCOME OF RESPONDENTS

All Males Females Respondents Only Only (N = 273) (N=140) (N=133) Monthly Income % % % $5,000 or below 27.9 17.3 39.1 $5,001 - $8,000 53.3 56.8 49.6 $8,001 - $14,000 15.4 21.6 9.0 $14,001 - $20,000 2.6 3.6 1.5 $20,001 or above 0.7 0.7 0.8 TOTAL 100.0

* Among all respondents, seventeen of the male respondents were students and nineteen of the female respondents were students or house-wives. Both students and house-wives were assumed to have n<3 income. Therefore, the no. of respondents in this table is less than that in the previous tables. 46 Characteristics of Respondents who Preferred Each Brand the Most

Budget for the Purchase of Athletic Shoes

As shown in Table 18，respondents who prefer Reebok or Nike the most have a higher budget for the purchase of athletic shoes. A higher proportion of respondents who prefer Nike the most have a budget of $500 or above.

TABLE 18 BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OF ATHLETIC SHOES' BY RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) 100 0.7 ( 1) / (/) / (/) 200 8.0 ( 11) 4.3 ( 6) 28.1 ( 9) 300 55.1 ( 76) 48.2 ( 67) 53.1 ( 17) 400 31.9 ( 44) 34.5 ( 48) 18.8 ( 6) 500 or above 4.3 ( 6) 12.9 (18) / (/) TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32) 47 Frequency of Wearing Athletic Shoes

Around 40 percent or more of the respondents who prefer Reebok and Nike the most wear athletic shoes one to two days per week. For those who prefer Bossini the most, many of them (37.5 percent) wear athletic shoes three to four days per week.

TABLE 19 FREQUENCY OF WEARING ATHLETIC SHOES BY RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini Frequency % (no.) % (no.) % (no.)

<1 Day/Month 2.9 ( 4) 1.4 ( 2) 6.3 ( 2) 1-3 Days/Month 6.5 ( 9) 6.5 ( 9) 6.3 ( 2) 1-2 Days/Week 39.1 ( 54) 46.8 ( 65) 25.0 ( 8) 3-4 Days/Week 28.3 ( 39) 18.0 ( 25) 37.5 ( 12) 5 Days or more 23.2 ( 32) 27.3 ( 38) 25.0 ( 8) Per Week TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32) 48 Usage Pattern - Athletic Shoes as Sports Wear versus as Casual Wear

Respondents, regardless of brand preference, tend to wear athletic shoes as casual wear much more than as sports wear. See Table 20. For those who prefer Nike the most, they tend to wear athletic shoes as sports wear more than those who prefer the other two brands.

TABLE 20 USAGE PATTERN OF RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred % of time as % of time as Reebok Nike Bossini sports wear casual wear % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) 0 100 25.4 ( 35) 16.5 ( 23) 28.1 ( 9) 10 90 20.3 ( 28) 18.7 ( 26) 15.6 ( 5) 20 80 14.5 ( 20) 16.5 ( 23) 15.6 ( 5) 30 70 16.7 ( 23) 23.0 ( 32) 18.8 ( 6) 40 60 5.8 ( 8) / (/) 3.1 ( 1) 50 50 12.3 ( 17) 14.4 ( 20) 12.5 ( 4) 60 40 0.7 ( 1) 1.4 ( 2) / (/) 70 30 / (/) 2.2 ( 3) / (/) 80 20 1.4 ( 2) 2.9 ( 4) / (/) 90 10 / (/) 1.4 ( 2) 3.1 ( 1) 100 0 2.9 ( 4) 2.9 ( 4) 3.1 ( 1) TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32) 49 Demographics of Respondents who Preferred Each Brand the Most

Tables 21 to 24 summarize the demographics of respondents who preferred each brand the most.

Marital status : As listed in Table 21, a higher percentage of who those prefer Bossini are married.

Education Level : A higher proportion of respondents who prefer Nike have tertiary education. See Table 22. Among those who prefer Bossini, a higher proportion of them (compared to those who prefer Reebok or Nike)' received education to the level of form 1 to form 3 (31.3%). A lower proportion of them received tertiary education (3.1%).

Occupation : Table 23 shows that a higher percentage of respondents who prefer Bossini the most were blue collar. A lower percentage of respondents who prefer Bossini were student.

Monthly income : Those who prefer Nike or Reebok tend to have higher incomes than those who prefer Bossini. See Table 24. Among all income classes, respondents tend to prefer Reebok and Nike more than Bossini. Out of 76 who have a salary below five thousand, more than half (41) of them prefer Reebok. Out of 42 who those have a salary between eight thousand and fourteen thousand, more than half of them prefer Nike. 50

TABLE 15

MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini Marital status % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Single 89.9 (124) 92.1 (128) 84.4 ( 27) Married, Divorced or Widowed 10.1 ( 14) 7.9 ( 11) 15.6 ( 5) TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32)

TABLE 22 EDUCATION LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Primary School 0.7 ( 1) / (/) / (/) Form 1 to Form 3 13.0 ( 18) 9.4 ( 13) 31.3 ( 10) Form 4 to Form 7 66.7 ( 92) 61.9 ( 86) 65.6 ( 21) Tertiary Education 19.6 ( 27) 28.8 ( 40) 3.1 ( 1) TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32) 51 TABLE 15 OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini Occupation % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) White Collar 58.0 ( 80) 59.7 ( 83) 46.9 ( 15) Blue Collar 13.8 ( 19) 17.3 ( 24) 28.1 ( 9) Self-employed 10.1 ( 14) 4.3 ( 6) 9.4 ( 3) Student 10.9 ( 15) 12.2 ( 17) 3.1 ( 1) House-wife 0.7 ( 1) 0.7 ( 1) 3.1 ( 1) Others 6.5 ( 9) 5.8 ( 8) 9.4 ( 3) TOTAL 100.0 (138) 100.0 (139) 100.0 ( 32)

气 TABLE 24 MONTHLY INCOME OF RESPONDENTS WHO PREFERRED EACH BRAND THE MOST

Brand Preferred Reebok Nike Bossini Monthly income % (no.) % (no.) % (no.) Below $5,000 33.6 ( 41) 23.1 ( 28) 26.7 ( 8) $5,000 - $7,999 50.0 ( 61) 53.7 ( 65) 63.3 ( 19) $8,000 - $13,999 12.3 ( 15) 19.8 ( 24) 10.0 ( 3) $14,000 - $19,999 2.5 ( 3) 3.3 ( 4) / (/) $20,000 or above 1.6 ( 2) / ( /) / (/) TOTAL* 100.0 (122) 100.0 (121) 100.0 ( 30) * The total here for each brand is less than that in the previous tables because some of the respondents are students and house-wives who do not have income. 52

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS THROUGH COMPARING THE RESULTS FROM MALE AND FEMALE RESPONDENTS

Budget for the Purchase of Athletic Shoes

Table 10 shows that male respondents tend to have a higher budget for the purchase of athletic shoes than do female respondents. Thus, the pricing policies and the product lines targeted to males and females should be different. More upper end athletic shoes at higher prices should be introduced to male consumers. But for female consumers, medium priced ($300 to $400) athletic shoes would be more attractive to them.

Frequency of Wearing Athletic Shoes

In Table 11，male consumers were shown to wear athletic shoes far more frequently than female consumers. This may contribute to the difference between male and female respondents in evaluating the six product attributes. Male respondents see three criteria, "prestige brand name", "style can match casual wear", and "comfortable enough", to be of equal importance. But female respondents see the first criterion, prestige brand name, as more important than 53 the other two criteria.

Even though male respondents wear athletic shoes more frequently than do female respondents, they did not see •丨Durable enough" as a more important attribute than did female respondents. Both of them valued durable enough as a less important criterion.

Usage Pattern

Both males and females wear athletic shoes as casual wear far more frequently than they wear it as sports wear. That is probably why "they saw "Design can enhance athletic performance" as the least important criterion. At the same time, they see "Comfortable enough" and "Style can match casual wear very well" as quite important.

Evaluation of Product Attributes

In Table 1, the ranks of attributes given by male and female respondents are the same, which means they see the relative importance of attributes in the same way. Thus, the relative importance of attributes for promoting a brand when targeting at either male or female consumers is the same. Prestige brand name is the most important attribute. Comfort and style can match casual wear are the next attributes to stress. 54 The relative importance of the remaining attributes, in descending order, are "Price is within budget", "Durable enough", and "Design can enhance athletic performance".

The Ranking of Reebok. Nike and Bossini

Table 5 shows that females tend to prefer Reebok more than Nike. Males, however, tend to prefer Nike more. So, Reebok needs to improve its image among male consumers while Nike needs to improve it among female consumers.

The rank of Bossini in many cases is rather low. In order to compete with Reebok and Nike, it needs to spend lots of effort to improve its image among both male and female consumers. 55

CHAPTER VI

STRATEGIES FOR ATTITUDE CHANGE

Framework for Attitude Change

As mentioned in the introduction, the advantage of the multi-attribute attitude model is in gaining an understanding of attitudinal structure. It enables us to study how attributes account for the overall attitude/preference of consumers toward a brand. In doing so, the strengths and weaknesses of a brand from the viewpoint of consumers can be determined. Strategies can then be formulated to improve a brand's competitive strength by either altering the saliency of attributes ；(1 ) or the beliefs about a brand (B,..). These are elaborated upon in the following discussion.

Alter the Saliency of Attributes 丨(1 .）

To change the saliency/importance of attributes, the marketer of a brand should try to increase the saliency of attributes for which the brand is strong, and to decrease the saliency of attributes for which the brand is weak. Besides, new attribute(s) for which the brand is strong can be introduced and consumers should be educated to see them as important. However, this way of changing 56 consumer's attitude is very brand or company specific. It depends very much on the competitive strengths and resources of the brand or the company. For this reason, altering consumer's attitude by introducing new attributes will not be discussed here. The focus of discussion will be on altering the saliency of the six attributes included in the present research.

Altering Beliefs about a Brand (Bj.).

To change the beliefs about a brand, the marketer of a brand should try to make consumers feel that the brand possesses the product attributes that are important to them. More emphasis should be placed on attributes thaf are more important to consumers. In the current research, the more important attributes are "A well known prestige brand"，"Comfortable enough" and "Style can match casual wear very well".

Either altering the saliency of attributes (I丨）or the beliefs about a brand (Bij) requires educating consumers through advertising and promotion activities.

Strategic Implications for Each Brand

Table 3 summarizes the score of each brand on each attribute. To facilitate analysis, the scores of each brand are plotted in the profile diagrams below. 57

EXHIBIT 1 PROFILE ANALYSIS : EVALUATION OF EACH BRAND BY ALL RESPONDENTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 Price is within RM B budget Tv 丁 /X Style can match fsm 卞 casual wear very well 八、 / \ Comfortable enough 贫 ^^

Durable enough /� Jl \ - A well known 节 , ^ ^^ prestige brand ^, Design can enhance B^ JsJ athletic performance

R——R REEBOK NIKE B- -B BOSSINI 58 EXHIBIT 1 PROFILE ANALYSIS : EVALUATION OF EACH BRAND BY MALE RESPONDENTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 Price is within JyJ^R R budget 丨 Style can match jW casual wear very well 了、、1 Comfortable enough

Durable enough JJ^ ^^^^yi^

—prestig e brand , ^ ^^^^^ - Design can enhance jJ^ athletic performance

R——R REEBOK N"——N NIKE B——B BOSSINI 59 EXHIBIT 1 PROFILE ANALYSIS : EVALUATION OF EACH BRAND BY FEMALE RESPONDENTS

12 3 4 5 6 Price is within J^NR budget Style can match J^R casual wear very well X / \ Comfortable enough � 夕N I yi Durable enough ^ FCJ^

A well known \ B prestige brand , ， ly^ Design can enhance athletic performance

R——R REEBOK N-—^ NIKE B——B BOSSINI 60 Reebok

Comparatively speaking, Reebok is more appealing to consumers than the other two brands. Out of the three most important attributes, the scores of Reebok on two attributes (A well known prestige brand and Style can match casual wear very well) is significantly higher than that of both Nike and Bossini (see Exhibit 1). For the attribute "Comfortable enough", Reebok's performance is as good as Nike's. In the remaining three attributes, Reebok's scores is lower than either Nike's or Bossini's. Reebok's shoes are perceived to be not as durable as Nike's. Besides, Nike's design is regarded as better than Reebok's in enhancing athletic performance. For the attribute "Price is within budget", the score of Reebok is lower than the score of Bossini. -

To attain a higher attitude score, Reebok should keep its strengths and improve its weaknesses. To keep its strength, Reebok should maintain its good performance in the three most important attributes mentioned before. If possible, it should try to further improve its performance on them and/or to increase their importance in the consumer's mind.

To face its weaknesses, Reebok should improve its performance on the remaining three attributes. It should reinforce its image that it is durable and its design can enhance athletic performance. Since its competitor Nike is performing better on these two attributes, another way to increase its relative advantage is to influence consumers' values so that they would see these attributes are of little importance for the evaluation of athletic shoes. To overcome the problem of > 61 having a relatively low score on the "Price is within budget" attribute, Reebok could enhance consumers' feeling that the purchase of Reebok represents good value for the money or high priced Reebok athletic shoes are of high quality.

As shown in Exhibit 2 and 3，the evaluation of Reebok by male and female shows similar pattern. The strengths and weaknesses of it relative to the other two brands, among each sex, are same as mentioned before. But on two attributes that Nike is strong in, "Durable enough" and "Design can enhance athletic performance", male respondents saw Reebok more inferior to Nike than did female respondents. These may explain why males tended to prefer Nike more than Reebok (see Table 5). In order to improve its image among male consumers, Reebok needs special emphasis on these two attributes.- 62 Nike

In Exhibit 1，the scores of Nike on two attributes, "Durable enough" and "Design can enhance athletic performance", are the highest among the three brands. These two attributes, however, are the least important ones among the six attributes. Nike should therefore try to make consumers place more emphasis on these two attributes.

To further increase its competitive strength, Nike should build a more prestigious image and should show consumers that its style can match casual wear very well. Because Reebok is performing better on these two attributes, it can increase its relative advantage through influencing consumers so that they place less emphasis on these attributes. As in the case of Reebok, to overcome the problem of having a relatively lower score on the Trice is within budget" attribute, Nike should enhance consumers' perceptions that it is good value for the money.

As indicates in Exhibit 2 and 3’ male and female respondents evaluated Nike in a similar manner. Female respondents, however, tend to prefer Reebok more than Nike (see Table 5). To improve its image among female consumers, Nike should project a more prestigious image and make female consumers feel that its style can match casual wear very well. The relative importance of these two attributes are in fact more important among female consumers than among male consumers (see Table 1). 63 Bossini

On only one attribute, "Price is within budget", is the score of Bossini higher than that of Reebok and Nike (the difference in mean score between Reebok and Nike on this attribute is, however, not significant). This is probably due to its lower price as compared to that of Reebok and Nike. Also, this may be a major reason why Bossini got a rather low score on the attribute "A well known prestige brand". Consumers are likely to relate high price to high prestige and low price to low prestige.

Besides, consumers in general perceive that Bossini's shoes are produced locally, and thus do not warrant a high price. These country-of-origin and price factors limit Bossini from successfully establishing itself as a high prestige brand such as Reebok or Nike. So, it had better concentrate its effort on other attributes. Lower its price to further improve its score on "Price is within budget" is not recommended. This may worsen its already less prestigious image, while prestigious image is the most important factor for evaluating athletic shoes. j

On the attribute, "Style can match casual wear very well", Bossini's score | is a bit higher than that of Nike, although the difference is not significant. This attribute is rather important, Bossini should enhance its image that its style can match casual wear very well. On this and remaining attributes, there is much room for improvement. To both male and female consumers, Bossini should project a image that it is comfortable, durable, and its design can enhance athletic performance. Extra effort should be spent if Bossini wants to gain share from its rivals. 64

CHAPTER VII

RELATIONS BETWEEN ATTITUDE SCORE, PREFERENCE AND PURCHASE

In Table 7，the consistency level between reported rank and implied rank demonstrates how well the attitude score is related to preference. In over half of the responses, the order of attitude scores of the three brands is totally in accordance with the order of preference for them. This indicates that the multi- attribute attitude score in this research, can reflect individual preference. The research design, therefore, is valid. In many responses, although total consistency does not exist, it is believed that, attitude score can also reflect preference to a certain extent.

From Table 8，the relation between preference and purchase can be investigated. For all three brands, the sales to respondents in their last purchase is dominated by the brand they preferred the most. Such domination is especially significant for Reebok and Bossini. Thus, preference and purchase are strongly related. But specifically what relationship exists may be different for different individuals and for different brands. Preference can reflect either post-purchase satisfaction or future purchase intention. It may also mean an avoidance of cognitive dissonance. A respondent may not really prefer the brand he/she bought. They may have indicated that they preferred it so as to avoid frustrations 65 that would occur if they indicated they preferred another brand instead.

From Table 9，the relation between attitude score and purchase can be investigated. Reebok has dominated the sales (last purchase) to respondents who gave them the highest attitude score. But for Nike, this sales is dominated by Reebok instead. For Bossini, it is dominated by both Reebok and Bossini. For all of the three brands, the degrees of sales domination to respondents that gave them the highest attitude score, are not as high as before, when preference and purchase are related. So, it can be concluded that attitude really can predict purchase, but not as strongly as can preference. That is, attitude is a weaker predictor of purchase than is preference (1). The attitude score, similar to preference, may reflect post-purchase satisfaction, future purchase intention, and the avoidance of cognitive dissonance. 66

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

This research project can be regarded as a fruitful one. Six attributes, "A well known prestige brand", "Comfortable enough", "Style can match casual wear very well", "Price is within budget", "Durable enough", and "Design can enhance athletic performance", in descending order of importance, are found to be important for the evaluation of athletic shoes. The relative importance of these attributes to male and female respondents are almost the same; with the « exception that females tend to see "A well known prestige brand name" as more important than do males.

Most respondents wear athletic shoes as casual wear much more than as sports wear. And probably because of this reason, they saw "Design can enhance athletic performance" as the least important criterion. Besides, the images of Reebok, Nike and Bossini in consumers' minds are very different. The scores of Reebok on the three most important criteria are the highest. Its mean multi- attribute attitude score is also the highest. Nike received the highest score on two attributes which were regarded as the least important. The performance of Nike, therefore, is not as satisfactory as that of Reebok. For Bossini, its score on one attribute, "Price is within budget", is higher than Reebok's and Nike's. Its average multi-attribute attitude score is far lower than that of either Reebok or Nike. To 67 improve their competitive strength, each brand should try to do the following. First, it should alter the importance of attributes. Each of them should try to increase the importance of attributes for which it is strong and decrease the importance of attributes for which it is weak. Second, it should enhance its image to consumers. Each brand should try to make consumers believe that it possesses the important product attributes. More attention should be placed on the more important attributes. In this research, "A well known prestige brand name"，"Style can match casual wear very well", and "Comfortable enough" are the more important attributes.

The evaluation of brands by male and female respondents is very different. A higher proportion of females like Reebok, but a higher proportion of males like Nike. Even so, the share of sales of Reebok and Nike to respondents is quite different. Fifty-six percent of females prefer Reebok and 46.7 percent of females bought Reebok recently. Although 56.7 percent of males prefer Nike, only 19.1 percent of males bought Nike recently. So, it is more likely that a person who prefers Reebok would have bought it. But it is less likely that a person who prefers Nike would have bought it.

Characteristics of respondents who prefer each brand the most are somewhat different. People who prefer Reebok or Nike the most tend to have higher income and education levels than those who prefer Bossini. People who prefer Bossini tend to have a smaller budget for the purchase of athletic shoes.

As a conclusion, the present research successfully applied the adequacy- 68 importance model to understand the reasons for consumer preference. The relations among attitude, preference and purchase are shown to exist. The relation between preference and purchase is stronger than that between attitude and purchase. Study of this kind is very useful for brand/product evaluation and it can make a great contribution to the construction of effective marketing plans. Thus, the use of it by marketers is strongly recommended. 69

APPENDIX lA

EXPLORATORY RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE Hello! I am a student of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and am conducting research concerning athletic shoes. Would you please spare some time to answer a few simple questions? 1. Is your age between 18 to 30? Yes ( Go to Q2 ) No ( Terminate ) 2. Have you bought a pair of athletic shoes priced two hundred dollars or above within the last two years? Yes ( Go to Q4 ) No ( Go to Q3 ) 3. Are you going to buy a pair within the next three months? Yes ( Go to Q4 ) No ( Terminate ) 4. For the purchase of athletic shoes, what are the factors/criteria that you would consider? - A. After mentioning a criterion, tick the corresponding box below and ask "Any other factor/criterion ？ B. Until respondent say "No other factor/criterion", ask one factor (only the factors that are mentioned by the respondent) after the other "how do you consider this factor to see whether a pair of athletic shoes suits you or not?". Write down or check the box for what was said. C. Please rank the criteria you have mentioned (read the criteria), in the order of importance to you for the purchase of athletic shoes. 1 means the criterion is most important. 2 means the criterion is second most important, and so on (write down the ranks in the bracket below). Criteria Mention (Rank) How to consider it ？ I. Price ( ) a. cheap b. reasonable c. within budget ZZZI d. others (specify) ZZIZ II. Style ( ) a. match casual wear b. new style c. colour HHZ d. good for different occasions 70 e. others (specify) III. Design ( ) a. good for a specific sports b. others (specify) IV. Material ( ) a. high quality b. others (specify) ^^^^^^ V. Brand ( ) a. prestige brand b. well known c. others VI. Comfort ( ) a. feel comfortable as you wear it b. fit the shape of your foot c. others VII. Others ( ) (specify) Others ( ) (specify)

In the following, I will read some statements corfcerning the evaluation of athletic shoes. Please tell me what is your degree of agreement in each of them (show respondent the chart which listed the six degrees of agreement - 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Somewhat Agree, 3 = Slightly Agree, 4 = Slightly Disagree, 5 = Somewhat Disagree, 6 = Strongly Disagree).

Statements (circle the numbers) 5. Before the purchase of athletic shoes, you will decide on a budget. (if answer is on the agree side, 1,2 or 3，ask Q6, otherwise skip it) 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. The price of the athletic shoes you buy will be within your budget. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. To you, the brand name of athletic shoes is not important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. You will be satisfied with the material used in a pair of athletic shoes priced $200 dollars or above. 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 9. It is very important that the style of athletic shoes can match your casual wear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. You do not believe that a pair of athletic shoes priced $200 or above can last for two years or more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Comparing athletic shoes of new style to that of traditional style, you prefer new style ones. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. On the purchase of athletic shoes that is priced $200 or above, you will not pay much attention to the material used. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. To you, it is more important that the style of athletic shoes can match sports wear than casual wear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 - 14. You will decide the colour you want before buying athletic shoes, (if answer is 1,2 or 3，ask what is the colour you want) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Colour . 15. You wear athletic shoes more as sports wear than as casual wear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. During the purchase of athletic shoes, price is not a very important factor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. You will buy a pair of specially designed athletic shoes for each of the sports you like to play. 1 2 3 4 5 6 -END- Name of Researcher Date 72

APPENDIX lA

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF EXPLORATORY RESEARCH

Answers to question 4 No. of % of respondents Distribution of ranks Mentions mentioning it Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Style/Design 16 22 9 47 84 Price 11 14 8 2 35 63 Comfort 19 5 2 2 28 50 Brand name 3 5 11 2 1 22 39 Durable 2 4 4 10 18 Material 6 1 2 9 16 used ‘

Many respondent were able to mention 2 to 3 criteria; quite a small number of them were able to mention 4 to 5 criteria. That's why in the above table, a very small number of cases have ranks 4 and 5 being assigned.

Answers to questions 5 to 17

Statement Frequency of each of the No. on the agree No. on the disagree number degrees of agreement side (1,2 or 3) % side (4’ 5 or 6) % 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 30 17 7 1 1 54 96 2 4 6 18 16 14 6 48 86 6 14 7 6 11 12 14 8 5 29 52 27 48 8 7 15 15 11 7 2 37 66 20 34 9 17 23 5 7 4 45 80 11 20 10 8 11 7 12 16 2 26 46 30 54 11 2 18 8 10 12 6 28 50 28 50 12 7 5 9 23 12 12 21 44 79 13 5 9 4 20 14 4 18 32 38 68 14 24 15 6 8 3 45 80 11 20 15 2 5 1 17 26 5 8 14 48 86 16 1 15 10 8 11 12 26 46 31 54 17 3 9 8 8 15 13 20 36 36 64 73 Highlights * 96% (54) of the respondents agreed that they have a budget before the purchase of athletic shoes (statement no. 5). Among them, 48 agree that the price of athletic shoes will be within their budget (statement no. 6). * 80% (45) of the respondents agreed that it is very important that the style of athletic shoes can match casual wear (statement no. 9). * 50% of the respondents preferred athletic shoes of traditional design and the other 50% prefer of innovative design (statement no. 11). * 79% (44) of the respondents disagreed that, on the purchase of athletic shoes priced $200 or above, they will not pay much attention to the material used (statement no. 12). * 68% (38) of the respondents disagreed that it is important that the style of athletic shoes can match sports wear rather than casual wear (statement no. 13). * Most people (80%) will decide on the colour of athletic shoes, usually white, before they go to buy them (statement no. 14). * 86% of the respondents disagreed that they wear athletic shoes as sports wear more often than as casual wear (statement no. 15). * People in general (64%) disagreed with the statement that they will buy a pair of specially designed athletic shoes for each of the sports they like to play (statement no. 17). 74

APPENDIX lA

CALCULATING THE SAMPLE SIZE FOR THE RESEARCH The study involved a measurement of proportion, i.e., the proportion that rates each brand as the most preferred brand. Using the formula :

Z (pq) N = E2， N : number of items in the sample, 2 Z : square of the confidence interval in standard error units, p : estimated proportion of success (a brand is preferred), - q : (1-p), or estimated proportion of failure (a brand is not preferred), E^ : square of the maximum allowance for error between true proportion and sample proportion, or ZSp squared. Keeping Z and E constant, the largest sample size is required when p = q = 0.5. Therefore the largest sample size required for the current study at 95 percent confidence level with E not greater than six percentage points is 267. (1.96)2 (0.5)2 N = 二 267 (0.06)2 The total sample size would be 300, i.e., 150 of each sex. 75

APPENDIX lA

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE RESEARCH PROJECT No.: M : F :

Hello! I am a student of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and am conducting a research concerning athletic shoes. Would you please spare some time to answer a few simple questions? 1. Is your age between 18 to 30? Yes ( Go to Q2 ) No ( Terminate ) 2. Do you or any of your family members work in the athletic shoes industry or advertising industry? Yes ( Terminate ) No ( Go to Q3 ) 3. Have you bought a pair of athletic shoes priced two hundred dollars or above within the last two years? Yes ( Go to Q5 ) No ( Go to Q4 ) 4. Are you going to buy a pair within the next three months? Yes ( Go to Q5 ) No ( Terminate )

5. Suppose that you have a budget before the purchase of athletic shoes, what will your budget be? $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 or above

6. On average, how many days in a week do you wear athletic shoes? ( If less than one day, ask : on average, how many days in a month do you wear athletic shoes?) Less than 1 day per month 1 to 2 days per week 1 to 3 days per month “ 3 to 4 days per week 5 or more days per week

7. On the days you wear athletic shoes, what is the percentage that you wear them for sports activities and what is the percentage that you wear them as casual wear? ( limit the percentages to multiples of ten percent ) Sport Casual wear 76 8. For the purchase of athletic shoes, people in general consider the following criteria : ( Show and read the criteria listed on card A ) Score Rank 1. Price is within budget. 2. Style can match casual wear very well. 3. Comfortable enough. 4. Durable enough. 5. A well known prestige brand. 6. Design can enhance athletic performance.

Among the six criteria which one do you think is the most important for people in general to evaluate athletic shoes? Which criterion is the second most important? Now suppose the importance score of the criterion ( name and point to the criterion on the questionnaire ) ranked the most important is 100 ( write 100 beside criterion ranked one before the respondent )，a score of 0 means that the criterion has no importance, what will be the importance score of the criterion (name and point to the criterion on the questionnaire ) you ranked the second? Which is the third most important criterion? What is its importance score? Repeat the underlined question above for the forth, fifth and sixth criteria. Here, I would like to know what is your degree of agreement with the statement that some brands of athletic shoes can fulfil the criteria mentioned. You can have six degrees of agreement ( Show and read the agreement scale listed on card A ) 9. First, for a pair of Nike athletic shoes, what is your degree of agreement on the saying that, TO YOU, its/it is ( Read the criteria listed on card A one after the other).

1. Price is within budget. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 2. Style can match casual wear very well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 3. Comfortable enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 77 4. Durable enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 5. A well known prestige brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 6. Design can enhance athletic performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High

10 Second, for a pair of Reebok athletic shoes, what is your degree of agreement on the saying that, TO YOU, its/it is ( Read the criteria listed on card A one after the other).

1. Price is within budget. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 2. Style can match casual wear very well. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 . Very Low Very High 3. Comfortable enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 4. Durable enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 5. A well known prestige brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 6. Design can enhance athletic performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High

11 Third, for a pair of Bossini athletic shoes, what is your degree of agreement on the saying that, TO YOU, its/it is ( Read the criteria listed on card A one after the other). 1. Price is within budget. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 78 2. Style can match casual wear very well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 3. Comfortable enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 4. Durable enough. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 5. A well known prestige brand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High 6. Design can enhance athletic performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Low Very High

12. Which of the three brands mentioned above, Nike, Reebok or Bossini, do you prefer the most? Which one do you prefer the second most? * Reebok Nike Bossini j

13. At the very beginning, you have answered that you have bought a pair of athletic shoes in the past two years, what is the brand name of that pair of shoes? (If the respondent has bought more than one pair, ask about the most recent one ) Reebok Nike Bossini Diadora L.A. Gear Puma Adidas New Balance Others ( please specify )

Finally, I would like to ask you some personal questions for the purposes of classification and statistical analysis. The answers will be held confidential. (Show card B which list the choices for Q14 to Q16 )

14. What is your marital status? Single Married, Divorced or Widowed 15. What is your education level? Primary school Form 4 to Form 7 Form 1 to Form 3 Tertiary Education 79

16. What is your current occupation? White collar Blue collar Self-employed House-wife Student Others ( Please Specify ) If the answer in Q16 is student or house-wife, skip Q17

17. This question is concerned with your monthly salary, is it above or below $5000 dollars? Below $5,000 or below Above asFTls it between $5,000 to $8,000 dollars? Yes $5,001 to $8,000 . No, ask : in which category does your monthly salary lie in? $8,001 to $14,000 $14,001 to 20,000 - $20,001 or above •

Thank you very much for your cooperation! -END-

Name of Researcher Date 80

APPENDIX 3B THE ORDER OF ATTRIBUTES AND BRANDS IN THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

6 Attributes

1. Price is within budget. 2. Style can match casual wear very well. 3. Comfortable enough. 4. Durable enough. 5. A well known prestige brand. 6. Design can enhance athletic performance.

Version Order of attributes * 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 4 3 5 1 2 6 3 5 1 4 6 2 3 4 6 4 3 5 1 2 5 2 5 4 6 3 1

Five attributes were randomly selected, each occupying the first position of one version. Attribute 3 was by chance not selected. The remaining positions, 2 to 6 of each version, were randomly determined.

Version Order of brands A Nike Reebok Bossini B Reebok Bossini Nike C Bossini Nike Reebok

Each brand was selected to occupy the first position of one version. The second and third positions were randomly determined.

There are a total of 15 (5x3) versions of the questionnaire. 81

APPENDIX lA

t-TEST SUMMARY To simplify the format of the t-test tables, single words will be used to represent the attributes : Word Used Attribute represented Price Price is within budget Style Style can match casual wear very well Comfort Comfortable enough Durability Durable enough Brand A well known prestige brand Design Design can enhance athletic performance t-test 1 : Test for the differences in mean scores of all attributes for all respondents Two-tailed probability Attribute Price Style Comfort Durability Brand Design (mean score) (57.4) (69.9) (71.4) (51.8) (77.0) (45.0) Price (57.4) / .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Style (69.9) / .422 .000 .001 .000 Comfort (71.4) / .000 .018 .000 Durability (51.8) / .000 .000 Brand (77.0) / .000 Design (45.0) / 82 t-test 2 ： Test for the differences in mean scores of all attributes for male respondents only Two-tailed probability Attribute Price Style Comfort Durability Brand Design (mean score) (57.3) (70.4) (71.1) (50.5) (71.2) (44.7) Price (57 3) / .000 .000 .005 .0 00 .000 Style (70.4) / .818 .000 .796 .000 Comfort (71.1) / -000 .965 .000 Durability (50.5) / .000 .009 Brand (71.2) 丨 Design (44.7) / t-test 3 : Test for the differences in mean scores of all attributes for female respondents only Two-tailed probability Attribute Price Style Comfort Durability Brand -Design (mean score) (57.6) (69.3) (71.7) (53.1) , (82.9) (45.3) Price (57.6) / .000 .000 .022 .000 .000 Style (69.3) / 342 .000 .000 .000 Comfort (71.7) / .000 .000 .000 Durability (53.1) / .000 -000 Brand (82.9) / Design (45.3) /

t-test 4 : Test for the differences in mean scores of each attribute between male and female respondents. Mean Score Attribute Males Only Females Only Two-tailed Probability Price 57.3 57.6 .887 Style 70.4 69.3 .684 Comfort 71.1 71.7 .799 Durability 50.5 53.1 -312 Brand 71.2 82.9 .000 Design 44.7 45.3 .826 83 t-test 5 ： Test for the differences in mean evaluative scores among the three brands on each attribute for all respondents. Attribute : Price Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.92) Nike (3.99) Bossini (4.24) Reebok (3.92) / -313 .000 Nike (3.99) / .O?] Bossini (4.24) / Attribute : Style Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.43) Nike (3.94) Bossini (4.04) Reebok (4.43) / .000 .000 Nike (3.94) / •� Bossini (4.04) /

Attribute : Comfort Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.41) Nike (4.47) Bossini (3.74) Reebok (4.41) / .442 -QOO ‘ Nike (4.47) / .000 Bossini (3.74) /

Attribute : Durability Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.95) Nike (4.35) Bossini (3.52) Reebok (3.95) / .000 .000 Nike (4.35) / -000 Bossini (3.52) /

Attribute : Brand Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (5.11) Nike (4.72) Bossini (3.78) Reebok (5.11) / .000 .000 Nike (4.72) / -000 Bossini (3.78) /

Attribute : Design Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.88) Nike (4.59) Bossini (3.30) Reebok (3.88) / -000 .000 Nike (4.59) / .000 Bossini (3.30) / 84 t-test 6 ： Test for the differences in mean evaluative scores among the three brands on each attribute for male respondents only. Attribute : Price Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.85) Nike (3.82) Bossini (4.24) Reebok (3.85) / .818 .002 Nike (3.82) / .001 Bossini (4.24) / Attribute : Style Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.33) Nike (3.82) Bossini (3.93) Reebok (4.33) / .000 .001 Nike (3.82) / .334 Bossini (3.93) /

Attribute : Comfort Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.32) Nike (4.43) Bossini (3.61) Reebok (4.32) / .283 .000 ‘ Nike (4.43) / .000 Bossini (3.61) /

Attribute : Durability Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.77) Nike (4.34) Bossini (3.36) Reebok (3.77) / .000 .000 Nike (4.34) / .000 Bossini (3.36) /

Attribute : Brand Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (5.00) Nike (4.69) Bossini (3.58) Reebok (5.00) / .010 .000 Nike (4.69) / .000 Bossini (3.58) /

Attribute : Design Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.64) Nike (4.66) Bossini (3.07) Reebok (3.64) / -000 .000 Nike (4.66) / .000 Bossini (3.07) / 85 t-test 7 ： Test for the differences in mean evaluative scores among the three brands on each attribute for female respondents only. Attribute : Price Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (3.99) Nike (4.17) Bossini (4.25) Reebok (3.99) / -069 .022 Nike (4.17) / .460 Bossini (4.25) / Attribute : Style Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.53) Nike (4.05) Bossini (4.15) Reebok (4.53) / .000 .000 Nike (4.05) / .357 Bossini (4.15) /

Attribute : Comfort Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.51) Nike (4.51) Bossini (3.87) Reebok (4.51) / .945 .QOO ‘ Nike (4.51) / .000 Bossini (3.87) /

Attribute : Durability Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.13) Nike (4.37) Bossini (3.69) Reebok (4.13) / .035 .000 Nike (4.37) / -000 Bossini (3.69) /

Attribute : Brand Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (5.23) Nike (4.74) Bossini (3.98) Reebok (5.23) / .000 .000 Nike (4.74) / .000 Bossini (3.98) /

Attribute : Design Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (4.13) Nike (4.52) Bossini (3.55) Reebok (4.13) / .001 .000 Nike (4.52) / .000 Bossini (3.55) / 86 t-test 8 ： Test for the differences in mean scores of Reebok for all attributes among male and female respondents Mean Score Attribute Males Only Females Only Two-tailed Probability Price 3.85 3.99 .294 Style 4.33 4.53 .094 Comfort 4.32 4.51 .099 Durability 3.77 4.13 .005 Brand 5.00 5.23 .055 Design 3.64 4.13 .000

t-test 9 : Test for the differences in mean scores of Nike for all attributes among male and female respondents Mean Score Attribute Males Only Females Only Two-tailed Probability Price 3.82 4.17 .011 Style 3.82 4.05 .061 Comfort 4.43 4.51 .542 Durability 4.34 4.37 .804 , Brand 4.69 4.74 .708 Design 4.66 4.52 .303

t-test 10 : Test for the differences in mean scores of Bossini for all attributes among male and female respondents Mean Score Attribute Males Only Females Only Two-tailed Probability Price 4.24 4.25 .916 Style 3.93 4.15 .094 Comfort 3.61 3.87 .047 Durability 3.36 3.69 .008 Brand 3.58 3.98 .010 Design 3.07 3.55 .001

t-test 11 : Test for the differences in multi-attribute attitude scores of the three brands for all respondents. Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (1651) Nike (1630) Bossini (1433) Reebok (1651) / .205 .000 Nike (1630) / 細 Bossini (1433) / 87 t-test 12 ： Test for the differences in multi-attribute attitude scores of the three brands for male respondents. Two-tailed probability \ Brand (mean score) Reebok (1572) Nike (1572) Bossini (1353) Reebok (1572) / .997 .000 Nike (1572) / 細 Bossini (1353) / t-test 13 : Test for the differences in multi-attribute attitude scores of the three brands for female respondents. Two-tailed probability Brand (mean score) Reebok (1733) Nike (1690) Bossini (1515) Reebok (1733) / -050 .000 Nike (1690) / .000 Bossini (1515) / t-test 14 : Test for the differences in mean multi-attribute attitude scores for male and female respondents on each brand.

Mean Score Brand Males Only Females Only Two-tailed Probability Reebok 1572 1733 .001 Nike 1572 1690 .017 Bossini 1353 1515 .002 88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bass, Frank M.’ and William L. Wilkie. "An attitude Model for the study of brand preference," Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February 1972), 92-96. 2. Beckwith, Neil E. and Lehmann, Donald R. "The Importance of Differential Weights in Multiple Attribute Models of Consumer Attitude," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 ( 1973),141-5. 3. Bettman, James r., Capon Noel and Lutz, Richard J. "Cognitive Algebra in Multi-Attribute Attitude Models," Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (1975), 151- 64. 4. Blackwell, Roger D. and Engel, James F.’ Miniard Paul W. "Compensatory Decision Rules," Consumer Behavior ( Saunders College, fifth edition, 1987 ), Ch 6. 5. Gill Penny, "Winning Pace For Footwear," Stores, July 1987，36:49. 6. Tuck Mary. "Fishbein Theory and the Bass-Talarzk Problem," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (August 1973), 345-8. 7. Wilkie, William L. and Pessemier, Edgar A. "Issues in Marketing's use of Multi-Attribute Attitude Models," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (November 1973), 428-41.

b^EbDEDDO saLjejqLH >IHn：)

f